We’ll see if stating that a nation can declare war on an emotion inspired by a tactic of conflict, as George Bush did with his propagandist and nebulous “War on Terror” (this was a companion war to his “War on Angst” and his “War on Humiliation”, both of which he also lost), has permanently been cemented in American minds as legitimate or not.

The MSM and election-concerned politicians have been gleefully pounding the war drum over the ongoing atrocities committed by ISIS.

I don’t think anyone would argue that this bloody crusade by ISIS to create a new Caliphate is horrendous and needs to be confronted and stopped but isn’t there a difference between being in an existential military war and being among the many targets of terrorists?

Some of those urging the U.S. to declare war against ISIS claim that because ISIS has beheaded two Americans, unquestionably a heinous and evil act, that by doing so, they have declared war on America so America should declare war on them and send our army back into Iraq.

The question that arises is, if any terrorists murder Americans anywhere in the world, are we instantly at war with them and required to send our army into the country where that took place?

If this is now such a Return to Bushism, then we will need millions of soldiers deployed in various wars all around the world at a cost that staggers the imagination. This is actually what would be good for America? Slashing all other domestic programs and spending so we can fight wars around the globe against any group of savage lunatics that harms Americans? And rest assured…or better yet, rest uneasy, there are plenty of savage lunatics around the world.

Terrorist organizations want the U.S. to be so frightened by them that the US elevates them by declaring war on them. Would the US declare war on an entity that wasn’t powerful and threatening to the most powerful military nation in the world? Declaring war on ISIS is playing into their hand, this is exactly what they want and it can be the most powerful recruiting tool they have. “Do you hate America and want to join the group that they fear the most and is formally at war with them? Come to ISIS for the fighting, stay for the ego boost!”

This is not saying that the US shouldn’t be part of a coalition, even leading it, to fight and crush ISIS. But are we truly “at war” with ISIS or should we be?

Wars, meaning full on wars that include ground troops, are generally fought against the dangerous leadership of countries or states. Even the Iraq War was started on the lie about Saddam Hussein being a threat to America. The Afghanistan war was fought against the Taliban leadership of that nation supporting Al Qaeda’s attacking our nation.

In this case, there is a rogue army that is occupying territory but they don’t represent the leadership of any nation. They are a militarized, terrorist group. Africa has far too many of these as well. If an American is killed tomorrow by one of these groups, does that mean we are at war in Africa and need to send in troops?

The bottom line is that as horrible and truly evil as ISIS is, they are at this time a terrorist army that is attacking Syrians and Iraqis and stealing their land and wealth (sort of like Wall Street but not as sneaky). The two nations which they are attacking are the ones at war with ISIS and should be spearheading military action against them (of course Syria is a very complicated situation). If a terrorist group was doing the same within the U.S. but they killed Iraqis as well, would or should Iraq declare war against them and send Iraqi troops into the U.S. to fight them?

Any imperialist entity needs to be confronted, sooner than later, and fought back since power can snowball. A despotic group or nation that is allowed to expand its influence and power can go from not posing a dire threat to our country to posing one. So, this is not intended to say that the U.S. shouldn’t exert any military force against ISIS, the airstrikes that protected thousands of Yazidis were invaluable and today it was announced that U.S. airstrikes have broken ISIS’ control of Iraq’s Haditha dam. These were successful and effective military actions that didn’t require U.S. ground troops or declaring war. The U.S. is providing air support as requested by and in conjunction with the Iraqi government.

Instead of the U.S. declaring war and sending in ground troops, it is now time for the Iraqis to get their political house in order and rally together over the need to fight off and destroy this ISIS threat to their sovereignty. And the neighboring countries which are next on the list for invasion should also be jumping in to protect themselves. Western nations including the U.S. can provide logistical support, satellite intelligence, drones and air strikes and assist with the coordination of a multi-nation coalition against ISIS.

It’s not exactly history repeating itself. With Iraq, there wasn’t any actual threat nor were Americans being beheaded, there was no ongoing invasion of other lands nor an ongoing mass murdering of innocent people. Saddam was not a good guy but when we went to war against him and Iraq, there was no legitimate or urgent reason.

There is an urgency to stopping ISIS however, if we look at the situation accurately, ISIS is really at war with the nations in the region to create its imagined Caliphate. They may ultimately dream of world domination but so have many brutal people and nations that we haven’t gone to war with for that reason.

The civilized world should come together over putting a stop to such terrible barbarism, the U.S. should be part of that effort but it is not necessary for the U.S. to proceed alone in a declared war when the responsibility for maintaining a civilized world rests on the shoulders of all world leaders, including the leaders of the nations that are actually being attacked and usurped.

37 Responses so far.

Adlib,
The “war on terror” in the 2000’s had about as much substance as the “war on drugs” of the 1990’s, and was about as successful. You could well say that the reason Bush couldn’t catch Bin Laden or make any progress in his wars and Obama did capture and kill Bin Laden and is almost done winding down Bush’s wars is:
-- Bush was fighting an amorphous beast -- terror -- which led Bush to start wars with people we had no business fighting (Iraq).
-- Obama was focused on the real wars we were fighting, those in Iraq and Afghanistan. The results, Bin Laden captured and killed, the Iraq war, ended, for us at least, the Afghan war, soon to be over.
If we want to be at war with terror we should focus on the real threats within our own borders. We have problems of our own. The rest of the world needs to start policing itself.

A well written example of pre 9-11 thinking. We ignored the terrorist threat from radical Islam and paid the price for it with WTC 1 and 9-11. We can’t afford to ignore it again. Words have meaning! War is serious action and should never be entered into lightly. The president has done all he can by targeting terrorist leaders. He now is taking the next steps not because he desires it but out of necessity. Now to get the senators and reps who are more concerned with reelection on board. I don’t envy his choices or decision. The same way I didn’t envy W’s decisions. W also had bad choices to make. Leave Hitler lite (Saddam) in power or take him out. Draw AQ hardened fighters to the battlefield we chose or let them attack us where they chose.
No wonder presidents end up with gray hair.

I don’t understand your description of the above as pre-9-11 thinking. There’s no mention of ignoring ISIS as you mention, the entire article is about taking action but not falling into the pre-9-11 thinking that got us into the Iraq War (the neocons in power with Bush had already planned a war on Iraq before 9/11 and were looking for the opportunity to launch it, this is documented).

And I must disagree, Saddam wasn’t Hitler-Lite, that comparison sure was promoted by the Bush Admin to launch the Iraq War but Saddam didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, they were no longer militarily strong enough to invade any other nations or pose a global threat.

I also don’t buy the “We need to fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.” IMO, it’s a fear mongering tool that the neocons and war hawks use against us to frighten us into supporting the wars they crave.

Violence begets violence. Granted, it is sometimes the only resort left (you can’t negotiate with extremist religious ideologues like ISIS) but there will be more young boys who see their innocent families mistakenly bombed or killed by the US and grow up to want revenge for it.

In the short term, military force is needed to weaken ISIS but military force won’t destroy them, only the Iraqi and Syrian people have that power.

I really enjoyed this article AdLib. I’m left wondering why it is and how it is that the U.S. somehow always winds up in the lead when it comes to hot spots around the world. I imagine our “status” in the world as a super power makes those in leadership in the government feel we have an obligation to not only this nation but the entire world. Wouldn’t it be nice if every rich nation in the world that could afford to intervene when necessary would do so?

The ME has been involved in the history of the U.S. for so many years, it is almost impossible to recount our history without recounting theirs. I wonder when we decided that we would control events in that part of the world. Was it before the discovery of oil or after? Was it before we helped Israeli’s return to the ME from around the world? Just when was it that we decided it was in our best interest to become involved there…was it at the end of the cold war? Was it before and during the cold war?

I sometimes wonder what the world would be like if we didn’t have businessmen and religious leaders bent on controlling the thoughts and resources of the earth and human beings on the earth. I imagine this would be a much better place in which to live if we didn’t have those that feel they need to control everything and everybody.

As for ISIS or ISIL, we are friends with these mercenaries/warriors/religious fanatics one day, and the next we are up in arms when they decide to take their own lead and go against our wishes. I agree, the nations in the region where ISIS has decided to set up this “Caliphate” should be the nations most concerned and the nations that contribute their blood and treasure to resolve the issue. I feel we because of our meddling in the region for so many decades should be willing to lend support if needed, but we I feel should not be leading this effort. The U.S. should once and for all allow the people of the ME to settle their problems, they should allow the people of the region to put down this force if that is what they wish, and afterward, should allow them to express self determination without interference from the U.S. or any western power. I truly hope the President’s address tonight will be something along these lines, and not yet another dictatorial statement from the “world superpower.” I hope President Obama allows all nations involved to decide how to handle this matter and in his address tonight lets those involved know that our strategy is to allow the ME the opportunity for self rule without interference, just assistance if necessary, not intervention.

Thanks monicaangela! I suppose that since the US has the biggest and most powerful military and since the myth of American Exceptionalism is out there, many Americans feel that we need to be the world’s superhero and fly “to the rescue” (all the Iraqis killed and wounded in Bush’s war might disagree with that description) whenever “evil” raises its ugly head.

Even if it wasn’t a financial or political concern, just out of principle in this global age, the US should always be working with a coalition of nations to confront any evil so that it promotes a consensus about the way the world should be.

As to our involvement in the ME, absolutely it can be directly connected to oil. If an energy discovery was made tomorrow that made oil unnecessary, the US would have little interest in the ME.

I don’t understand it myself, the obsession to control others but we’ve unfortunately seen it confirmed throughout history that this terrible emotional need is endemic to the human condition. There will always be those who seek to control the many to elevate themselves…and they will always be fought for doing so, never winning in the long run.

Generally speaking, I do agree with nations solving their own problems but the truth is, the US is the Dr. Frankenstein that helped bring this ISIS monster to life, through Bush’s invasion of Iraq and destabilization of the country.

The US went into that country, destroyed the government and its army and collaborated on allowing the oppression of those who eventually rose up as ISIS. So, it’s not really an Iraq or Syria thing, the US has its thumbprint on ISIS too.

Can we walk away from a fire that we helped set? I don’t know that we morally can. Yet, we can’t ultimately solve this all ourselves, we can only assist Iraq. They will have to step up (the Kurds too) and be the face of the resistance to ISIS. But I do think that our actions in causing this situation does make us responsible for helping to diffuse it.

We are responsible, there is no doubt about that. We need to own up to it. That is what I hoped the President would do in his speech. We need to assist, but not take the lead in trying to solve this problem we have caused. I realize we are responsible, and because of that responsibility do have a moral obligation to try to correct the mistakes we have made.

My problem with our being in the lead is this: I don’t feel we have made up our minds to do this for the Iraqi’s and the people of Syria. I believe we are still acting in our own best interest over the interest of the people of the region. I believe if we for once would remove ourselves and our needs from this equation and try desperately to help the people of this region repair the trouble we have caused, we and those that are willing to help might have a chance in resolving this problem, otherwise, we are continuing through our self interest to exasperate the opposition and what we do will only lead to more problems.

I pray we/our government will step back for a moment and realize we can’t be in the lead on this one, neither can any of the nations that were a part of the coalition that destroyed Iraq in the first place. These nations along with the U.S. btw are still wreaking havoc on Iraq and the rest of the region for profit. I would hope that we would work with the people of the nations involved, help them survive this problem we have caused, but do it in their best interest under their leadership, and not our own.

If we can prevent another Rwanda or any form of ethnic cleansing, any efforts against this murdering group of thugs, will have been worth it.

We have to always remember why Iraq is so unstable in the first place, and yes, some should feel responsible to a greater degree for what is happening there now.

This is not a war, it is ridding the ME of the devil and the suffering they are bringing to the people of Iraq, and the possibility of a much larger threat to both the U.S, the U.K. and Europe because we made the huge mistake of thinking that Al Qaeda had been defeated. As we now know they had been joining forces with other militant groups to start what we have now. The West dropped the ball on this one, and now has the unenviable job of cleaning up the mess they helped to create.

The war mongers will call it a war because that is what they are dreaming about. Most people will see it as precision air strikes to help the Iraqi Army and Kurdish fighters on the ground.

I remember not that long ago when strikes were ordered on Libya to save the lives of close to 30,000 civilians who were being assassinated by Gaddafi’s troops, your media and RW nutjobs called that a war too.

President Obama, on his recent trip to Europe, got 9 NATO countries to commit to destroying IS, and as far as I can gather from the latest reports, not one of them will be putting troops on the ground. So where is this “war”? The only “war” that is not a war that I can see, is the continuing fight against terrorists that unfortunately didn’t end with the death of Osama bin Laden.

—-

Obama Enlists 9 Allies to Help in the Battle Against ISIS

President Obama escalated the response to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria on Friday, recruiting allies to help crush the group and outlining a strategy that echoes the war on terror.

Kalima, so true, this is not a war but it is a battle. Some may see no difference but the difference is, a war is usually an existential fight, where nations have to commit all they can because losing means the end of their very existence.

That is not what ISIS represents, certainly not at this point in time. They are however an evil, bloodthirsty force that is sewing havoc and destruction through part of the world and in this era, we’re all interconnected. Which also means that if they’re successful, ISIS too could become global. So, the maniacs have to be stopped even if they’re not in our backyard.

But it is the civilized world that needs to come together and insist that such a group and such action have no place in the 21st century.

Good points, Adlib. It makes me wonder if we don’t have a co-dependent relationship now with the Iraqi “government.” Why should they do anything if we’ll clean up the mess for them? Aren’t they the folks who dropped their guns and uniforms and skedaddled? Let’s just hope there’s some “tough love” being exercised here.

I saw another interesting point posted on facebook by someone from Occupy Denver. It was a picture of a man who had just had his head chopped off by Saudi religious police for the apparent crime of being a “wizard” or something like that. The picture made its point pretty well.

GC, the US has so broken the spine of Iraq, it’s hard for them to stand up. One can hope that this new government might make a real difference. The truth is, no outside country can resolve what is a conflict that’s come from internal issues. ISIS rose after Bush’s invasion of Iraq and the resulting warring between religious factions. That has to be solved by Iraqis ultimately, we may help in reducing the power of ISIS but they can only be eliminated by Iraqis and Syrians.

The pictures of the ISIS beheading of journalists are absolutely horrifying, and support goes out to their families and loved ones. That doesn’t mean we (as in USA) should get involved or that we even know which side we should join.

AdLib is right--this video is fodder for the MSM beating the drum for more war. And that might work with Americans. But I’m not so sure the world gives us the benefit of the doubt this time. We’ve squandered our moral authority--It is almost ten years to the day that the pictures of what Americans were doing at Abu Ghraib were first circulated, and while we didn’t see any beheadings, that doesn’t mean we saw the whole treasure trove. Seymour Hersch said he had personally seen other photographs from the prison that were far more shocking. Does anybody on this planet trust us to do the right thing (in Iraq or anywhere else)?

I think anybody who does the reading on the history of our very checkered behavior in that part of the world would probably come to the conclusion that there’s nothing we can do that will be perceived as humanitarian or altruistic. And the talking points are coming close to 1984--we are at war with Eastasia, we’ve always been at war with Eastasia. Every once in awhile I want to get in the Wayback Machine and see how things in Iran and Iraq would’ve turned out if we’d decided against supporting the Ba’athists in Iraq and overthrowing Mossadegh in Iran. It’s a history we should at least acknowledge when blowback happens.

misterbadexample, couldn’t agree more with the tattered US reputation especially in the ME and to the population there. If the US occupied Iraq again, with the history of torture and innocents killed, it would be the best recruiting tool ISIS could hope for.

We need to rehabilitate our international military image, especially in that region. The US airstrikes saving 50,000 Yazidis and pushing back ISIS from the Haditha Dam are steps in the right direction. A unilateral ground invasion would wipe out any gains.

The world shouldn’t trust the US to do the right thing, the US should just do the right thing.

I do that too, imagine what the world would be like if certain decisions were or weren’t made. If the SCOTUS and Jeb Bush didn’t steal the presidency for George Bush and his neocons, there would never have been an Iraq War, Saddam would still be in power in Iraq and ISIS wouldn’t have grown there. The US would have trillions more in money, thousands of our military would be alive and tens of thousands of our troops wouldn’t have been seriously injured. The US’s international reputation would be much more respected and trusted.

It’s amazing to see the domino effect, how one terrible decision by just five people in robes could send the entire nation and world into such a damaged future.

Ad. as you know , I’m against war. I am also against ISIS doing the atrocities it is doing.
That said, America can not go to war like “w” did, but, if we get a coalition of several countries like George H W Bush did in the first Gulf War and give aid to the countries that are being attacked by ISIS, I can support that action. That coalition has to include Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia as well as many other countries.

This is not like when we invaded Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. This is stopping very bad people from killing indiscriminately.

Nirek, I don’t think Saudi Arabia would ever provide any support for military attacks against ISIS since they support ISIS, both politically and financially.

I do think the US should put huge pressure on SA to stop supporting ISIS and help the US and other countries stop them. It will take a lot of organized pressure though, the Saudis are determined to have ISIS spearhead the kind of oppressive tyranny they want spread across the region.

As for Syria, that’s a difficult country for the US to be working with against ISIS. Assad has murdered many innocents himself, it’s like one mass murderer helping us with worse mass murderers…who also pose a threat to him.

Iraqis and The Kurds are the most likely prospects to band together with western nations to battle ISIS. If we have them and can get Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. to stop supporting them at least, we’ve got a solid path to take.

Nirek, wish it was something that would stay contained but if ISIS continues to amass billions in financing, land, military equipment and force, they’re not going to stop at the water’s edge. Remember, they’re an extremist form of Al Qaeda, so extreme Al Qaeda kicked them out. And keep in mind that their vision is to dominate the world.

If not stopped, they would be in a position to finance and execute terrorist attacks and even uprisings in nations around the world.

We can’t turn our backs on ISIS if we don’t want to face an even more powerful an global enemy in the future.

We turned our backs on Afghanistan after the Russians left and it brought about Al Qaeda, 9/11 and The War on Terror that has so devastated the rights of Americans and the lives of thousands around the world. Al Qaeda didn’t stay contained in Afghanistan and ISIS won’t stay contained in the Middle East if they’re not stopped.

You’ve seen war first hand, you know how horrible it is. I’m very anti-war myself which is why I’m opposed to this declaration of war BS. Even so, sometimes the choice is between limited action in the near term or massive action in the long term. I do think that if we let ISIS flourish, we would pay a very dear price in the future, in blood and treasure.

As part of the world community, I think we need to work together to put out this regional fire before it becomes a global wildfire.

Nirek,the Saudis want to implement Sharia Law throughout the region and THEY are the ones behind the Syrian rebels and ISIS.It’s their $$$$$$ supporting these barbarians. BTW anyone here remembers how MacInsane was the first one to fly over there and post for pictures with the rebels? I’ve said from the beginning: there is no way Bashir Al-Assad will allow this law in his country.Most of us were aware the rebels were Al_Qaeda…

The Saudis have strong alliances with the USA -- finalizing with George the Dumbscheister”, marionette of Dart the machine kill man Cheneychickenhawkeffing mofo…The Saudis will “pretend to support the Western, but they will never openly do it.I am on hospitality business. I deal with these scum on a daily basis.Women dressed in black. cannot open their mouths,never allowed to express themselves.When I see progressives here defending them, it makes me sad.Nobody wants a full flagged war all over the world, much less the brave soldiers of America.But we are dealing now with a new kind of terrorists.Subhumans , obnoxious , atrocious pre-mankind animals. They are all psychopaths in love of BLOOD. Did you know the guillotine was way more civilized? They have cut, minute by minute the heads of those two Americans and over 900 Kurdish’s????Kill them all. I do not care. Bomb or better, NAPALM them.This globe is going totally nut over religion bullshit and power ….false cults. Talibangelists willing to kill the president, white trailer trash blaming their misery on the “black guy” occupying the White House.
Do you know -- and I repeat myself -- WHY they attacked us on 9/11? Watch Day Of Siege…..Lovies always.Tat

Exfan, I certainly understand your feelings about the Saudis. I have never trusted them. Remember that most of the 911 attackers were Saudis.
I have always wondered why we didn’t attack Saudi Arabia ? (except $$$$$)

Hi AdLib, superb article. there is not an 11 or higher so you get a 10 from me.

Although your two sections below are probably what will happen. lets
think another way as to the out come. NO ISIS is not a danger to the USA but almost everyone thinks so. NO military force unless it is the whole world is going to invade the USA with any kind of military force on this continent . Their will always be terrorist attacks hopefully very small. Yea the political world in the US will have a fit. NO solution is a total solution of the problem. OH Obama what ever his decision is, Is going to get flack from all sides even the Democrats for the upcoming elections and get votes of their side.
Back to this later.

From your article
instead of the U.S. declaring war and sending in ground troops, it is now time for the Iraqis to get their political house in order and rally together over the need to fight off and destroy this ISIS threat to their sovereignty. And the neighboring countries which are next on the list for invasion should also be jumping in to protect themselves. Western nations including the U.S. can provide logistical support, satellite intelligence, drones and air strikes and assist with the coordination of a multi-nation coalition against ISIS.
————--
Yes the above should happen no question.

———
From your article,
The civilized world should come together over putting a stop to such terrible barbarism, the U.S. should be part of that effort but it is not necessary for the U.S. to proceed alone in a declared war when the responsibility for maintaining a civilized world rests on the shoulders of all world leaders, including the leaders of the nations that are actually being attacked and usurped.
—--
Again this should happen

——-
Now I hate to say it but congress needs to approve any plan that gets carried out.
OH this is stupid also. The republicans will leak any plan to the press or the press will find out from some Source maybe even on the Obama side.
This is a disasters you can’t wage this War/ISSUE in public!!!
Secrecy is needed for any plan to work.

This process will say to ISIS the world/USA is coming and now ISIS has the HOW and WHEN within limits is going to take place.

Any actions sent to the press needs to be totally miss information.
SO to protect the worlds/USA military citizens. It also needs to be coordinated with the rest of the worlds press.
Of course this will not be done.

OK back to the top and why this will not stop this issue forever.
The leaders of ISIS just get out of the way to another country somewhere. like all cowards they will let the present followers take the action and most will die.
The leaders just reform and get new followers sometime in the future. It may be a few yrs but not that long.

You can’t eliminate a rebellious/religious cult and THERE CALL TO WAR for their cause.

IN conclusion: You have the right answers and congrats again.

For my part is How the plan should be protected and of course this is impossible.

A synthesizer can create any instrument made and others that have not been created yet.

Yes they are. They will attack anything and everyone “western”….I have been to several <Muslim countries which I dare NOT visit AGAIN. Why should I wear the shador in THEIR countries???? Why cannot them accept OUR way of life?

HI EXFAN.
Yes they will attack but will not have an army to cross the sea’s. OH they will attack by terrorism no question in the USA or on what they think is Their land. They will try to expand so the world must combine to wipe them out.

Yes they do have to be taken out. I am all for it but they need to get 95 % + of everybody now or they will reform.

The price in innocent lives will be high and the Military also. ONE is too many but that is impossible to achieve.

OH i would not go anywhere close to the middle east these days or anytime in my life.

SO are we doing the same thing just under another guise??

Well in my opinion no. The rest of the world should have to take a bigger part and the responsibility.

Some 60 % of US citizens does not what our soldiers on the grounds.

Past the Time to let the rest of the world take the lead and most of the military action.

Sayings of ( the child of nature )

” On the earth there is peace for all that live on it.
Why humanity does not live it, is all a function of religious beliefs. For their is no cure for religion and all need to be the only one.”

We’re on the same page, ISIS is a terrorist militia and though they have murdered Americans among the many more Muslims they’ve murdered, that in itself is not what has ever constituted an act of war for the US. These are acts of terrorism and should be treated as such. You don’t declare war on terrorists as if they were a country, you put together a strategy to prevent them from future attacks and take them apart.

And no question, there is no reasoning with extremist religious ideologues. You can’t negotiate with absolutists who murder based on their beliefs, you can’t get more permanently committed to an insane path than that.

Hi, AdLib, Another great article. Well done.
I am a bit concerned that no one has mentioned what the consequences will be if these psychopaths get hold of nuclear weapons, like maybe in Pakistan? Can the Taliban get a foothold in Pakistan?

Many questions arise each day. I cannot begin to understand how the President, with so little support from Congress and the propaganda waged against him by the right and the media, can function and create strategies to keep us all safe.

I am a Canadian,and we have just sent off special forces to Iraq…not to fight, but to advise… I am so glad Obama is the C in C. Because like most Americans,we do not want to go to war either, and I believe he will do all he can to keep us out of one. So, God help us all, if we can not get this crisis in check.

After all this doom and gloom it does not seem fitting to say “Have a nice day,” but, I guess we all have to get on with living and making the most of each day So, Have a super day, AdLib. All the best.

Again HI,
Yea i agree with your second post also.
I really feel for a lot of people in the region and the two americans and the natives in the region murdered. What is worse is that too many more will die.

Hey Ad. As far as the war mongering righties go, they can’t do anything without the president’s approval.

I agree, ISIS needs to be stopped, as a matter of fact, they need to be obliterated, in my opinion. They are even more ruthless than al Qaida, and they have no place in this world.

I ask myself, who am I to make such a determination, but when they slaughter people by the hundreds, not just a couple of Americans, then they become no better than rabid animals and must be put down, for the good of all people, everywhere.

I think the president is handling this situation very well. He certainly weighs his decisions very carefully. Screw the war mongers. We don’t need troops on the ground or more US military bases in Iraq. With the precision of our air strikes and patriot missiles, we don’t need boots on the ground.

Agreed KT, ISIS has to be stopped, they are like a cancer, destroying life in every direction. It is an international problem, it requires an international solution. Which requires an international military operation. What would pour gasoline on the ISIS fire is the US dropping ground troops in to fight ISIS. SO obvious, I think Obama understands this and won’t cross that line.